Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 166 posts

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#81

Post by ChadNauseam »

kelseyfrog wrote: post #65
norwalkbear wrote: post #24

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

I've got no strong opinions, but some trans people I'm friends with have struggled with feelings that no matter what they do, they will never be able to be happy with their bodies and how others see them. For some trans women I know, they tell me that femininity can feel like the plot of 1/x, getting closer and closer to the destination but never reaching it. One told me she wouldn't wish being trans on her worst enemy.

I'm not sure, but I think the DSM-5 classifies gender dysphoria as a disorder, one that's best treated by proving the resources for transition and social acceptance (if desired by the patient). But if the feeling were caused by some kind of chemical contaminant, and removing the contaminant caused feelings of gender dysphoria to go away, I think many people who would otherwise transition would prefer that route. So in that sense, if there really is a contaminant, it and our current lack of knowledge of it would be a disaster.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#82

Post by rayiner »

marricks wrote: post #8

I'm concerned this is making numbers here because of fear mongers so I want to run the numbers a bit to > The top 10 countries ranked in the order of high to low average EE2 concentration in surface water, were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal, with the respective mean concentrations of 27.7, 22.1, 21.5, 21.1, 13.6, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8, 7.6 and 6.6 ng/L Going by Wi…

> I bring this up because of the right wing fear of the "feminization of men."

> Where the right wing ideology on this is strongest (US perhaps?)

I can’t imagine the confusion that would lead someone to conclude that “feminization of men” is a “right wing fear” that is perhaps “strongest” in the US? The US has among the loosest gender norms of any place in the world, including a number of European countries.

In the other countries you mentioned, like China, Kuwait, etc., traditional gender norms aren’t even “right wing”—because that would imply they’re even up for debate: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-55926248

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#83

Post by Sunspark »

lazide wrote: post #37
User23 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I bring this up because of the right wing fear of the "feminization of men." The secular testosterone decline in the west is absolutely incontrovertibly real. The error is looking for a single cause to pin a civilizational scale endocrine disruption event to.

Which can also be related to the mass decrease in exercise and other activities which are known to increase testosterone in men, and rapid increases in stress and sedentary behaviors that are known to decrease it. Not saying the chemicals aren’t contributing, but our lifestyle is terrible and it has been getting that way rapidly and over a relatively short period of time (a generation).

The rabbit hole is very deep. Our diet has changed (e.g. nutrient deficiencies, take one out, there is a knock-on effect), we have been exposed to more pollution which is absorbed through our skin and lungs, etc.

Lifestyle changes too.. a great example is the legislative mandate for flame retardants. I feel they are used excessively. Flame retardants don't just go away. If your cushion or whatever gets older and starts to break down slowly, you bet those dust particles include flame retardants and you breath it in.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#84

Post by zackmorris »

baldisbasics wrote: post #38

I swear, everyone in my part of the US had massive hair shedding around 2018 or so (man and woman, young and old). We speculated at the time that maybe something in the water supply was causing everyone to lose hair in clumps, and by golly this appears to match with our pet theories.

That's interesting, which part of the US is it, and does anyone have hard evidence of that trend?

Only one datapoint, but: the outer half of my eyebrows fell out in 2018 just before my digestive issues flared up and I burned out in the spring of 2019. I wondered if maybe radiation from Fukushima affected my thyroid, since radiation levels in southern Idaho were 80 times normal before they quit reporting them.

I've since made a full recovery, but it took 3 years and endless research where it felt like I was losing my wits at times. I feel now that our health actually comes from our gut, so a multivitamin and a daily low-dose "stress" B vitamin, along with twice the water we think we need, and about 4 times the fiber (in the US at least) and greens mix or fresh leafy vegetables, is critical to maintain health in today's age where so much produce is lacking vitamins and minerals due to depleted soils.

I know several people who went through autoimmune issues around that time and now can no longer eat wheat without consequences like weight gain to severe GI distress. I feel like I developed lactose intolerance, so maybe a toxin got concentrated in milk. It's probably just middle age though.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#85

Post by junofan »

marricks wrote: post #62
throwaway0x7E6 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Quoted post unavailable.

How do you feel about people who think climate change is nothing to freak out about? I think empathy is called for here.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#86

Post by gnorme »

marricks wrote: post #8

I'm concerned this is making numbers here because of fear mongers so I want to run the numbers a bit to > The top 10 countries ranked in the order of high to low average EE2 concentration in surface water, were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal, with the respective mean concentrations of 27.7, 22.1, 21.5, 21.1, 13.6, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8, 7.6 and 6.6 ng/L Going by Wi…

Humans aren't the only thing we should be considering.

Collapse of a fish population after exposure to a synthetic estrogen

"We conducted a 7-year, whole-lake experiment at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in northwestern Ontario, Canada, and showed that chronic exposure of fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) to low concentrations (5–6 ng·L−1) of the potent 17α-ethynylestradiol led to feminization of males through the production of vitellogenin mRNA and protein, impacts on gonadal development as evidenced by intersex in males and altered oogenesis in females, and, ultimately, a near extinction of this species from the lake."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1874224/

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#87

Post by the_only_law »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #80
kelseyfrog wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

If lead pollution made people kinder, it feels to me like lead pollution would still be a bad thing. While I got the same impression as you from that comment, HN's guidelines[0] say: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

Sounds like an easy way to encourage trolls (it is).

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#88

Post by Sunspark »

oceanplexian wrote: post #35
marricks wrote: post #23

Apparently everyone is downvoting everything they can because this is a sensitive topic. I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe), there is less than 1ng/L of this compound in water, see elsewhere on this thread for the graphic. The lowest dose of EE2 for trans-women is 2mg a day orally. That means whatever the dosage is in the US it's less than 1/10th* of what trans folk fi…

This still sounds concerning to me, if the dose is 2mg for a healthy adult what is it for children and infants? What about babies in the womb? We saw the same exact thing with PFAS/PFOA, the experts said it was harmless, present in impossibly small quantities, and it would "pass right through you" for literally years. But then it turned out the experts were completely wrong. They found 2000PPM of PFAS in my Mom's wel…

The forever chemicals like those are absolutely awful.

Fracking is another source of chemicals into water supplies.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#89

Post by kelseyfrog »

pure_simplicity wrote: post #13
marricks wrote: post #8

I'm concerned this is making numbers here because of fear mongers so I want to run the numbers a bit to > The top 10 countries ranked in the order of high to low average EE2 concentration in surface water, were Vietnam, Cambodia, China, Laos, Brazil, Argentina, Kuwait, Thailand, Indonesia and Portugal, with the respective mean concentrations of 27.7, 22.1, 21.5, 21.1, 13.6, 9.6, 9.5, 8.8, 7.6 and 6.6 ng/L Going by Wi…

Dropping testosterone levels and decreasing sperm quality are not a "right wing fear", but a scientific fact, and that should concern everyone: right and left wing, men and women. Also, to look at this 1 compound in isolation and downplay the significance of it, without considering the cumulative and synergistic effects of all the other xeno estrogens we are exposed to on a daily basis is irresponsible.

No post body was provided.

Re: Review of 17α-ethynylestradiol in water across 32 countries: Estrogenic effects

#90

Post by rayiner »

gcr wrote: post #64
rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd just like to call out, where feminization is a major concern (US, maybe Europe) What’s that supposed to mean? The article shows the rates in Southeast Asia are 10 times higher than the US. I can assure you that “feminization” would be a much more significant concern there than in the US or Europe.

i think OP's two points are that 1. backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries (HN audiences skew toward this population anyway); 2. these days, right-wing extremists in my country (USA) see "feminization of men" as a politically beneficial wedge issue, and this politicization makes it impossible to study the actual societal effects impartia…

> backlash against "feminization of men" is something that people seem to care about more in the USA than other countries

Only because in most countries the established gender norms are taken for granted and aren’t being challenged.

Post reply on HN